Mill begins this chapter by saying that the principles of Utilitarianism cannot be proven by reason. Thus, we must explore the reasons for the validity of Utilitarianism. However, the only proof that can be given for the validity is that we consider happiness to be desirable.
To prove that happiness is desirable is rather simple. When we want to prove an object is visible, we see it and show that it can be seen. Therefore to prove that happiness is desirable, we desire it and show that it is desired as the main end of life.
However, some do argue that although the desire for things such as happiness is universal, desire for things such as virtue and absence of vice is not universal and therefore a secondary end to human life besides happiness. Mill argues that this is false. If virtue is desired, it is because virtue is a necessary part of happiness, rather than a separate goal.
This leads to the further conclusion that anything that is desired as anything other than a means to happiness, for example how virtue is desired for its own sake is desired because happiness is a definite thing with component parts. And the desire for said part once again leads back to the idea that happiness is the sole desire of human existence.
Mill strongly believes these ideas and then goes on refute the only possible counterpoint to this issue: the moral will. Opponents to utilitarianism argue that moral will is something that exists outside of physical or emotional desire. Virtuous people do moral good without expecting or desiring any physical or emotional returns on their “investments.” While Mill does admit that will is different from desire and can become an end in of itself, will almost always originates in desire. Because at one point said person has associated doing good acts with happiness, simply willing it now even though it is no longer from desire, does not change that the original act is done from happiness, therefore making happiness the ultimate goal of life itself.
So in conclusion, utilitarianism is proven to be the most valid philosophy because as we can see, happiness is the only desire of life. Anything we desire that isn’t happiness or a means to get to happiness is instead a component of happiness. And although we may begin to will things instead of doing them from happiness, we still at one point did them to achieve happiness and continue to do so out of habit.
These ideas are really striking to me. When reading Mill I find myself agreeing that most if not all of the things I do and the decisions I make involve to some extent a reflection on how the decision would affect me. I also began to think of the little “good” things we do on a daily basis, like saying “bless you” or holding a door open for someone walking by. While I do perform these actions from will, rather than any desire, I can’t help but think that at some point I only learned these actions because I was taught to consider these actions to be worthy of praise and that I would be happy if I were to be praised.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism.
6 comments:
When Mill says that some pleasures are greater in amount than others, he might be trying to say that certain pleasures have a greater “amount” of pleasure than others. Thus, the action that has a greater quantity of pleasure will be considered more “valuable” than another.
I don't really understand what you're saying Sarmad. Are you saying that the "amount" of pleasure is based on how desired a certain pleasure is? If this is what you are saying, I would agree that Mill believes that the more valuable pleasure is that which would be chosen over another pleasure, as he states in Chapter 2.
I think Sarmad is confusing quantity with quality. "Amount" doesn't really refer to more of this one definite thing. Instead it refers to certain things being more pleasurable in the sense that they are more desired (as Jaime said) and therefore higher in quality in terms of how they compose happiness. Thus, an opera doesn't bring "more" pleasure than Bejewled, it is just a higher quality pleasure.
Maybe, Sarmad is trying to refer to the point Mill does state concerning the actual amount of people that a pleasure can help. If a pleasure helps more people, it is considered more valuable than a pleasure that just helps the individual.
I enjoy Mills idea that everything is done for happiness or as a means of attaining happiness; however, I believe that happiness is different for everyone and though we all strive for happiness, we cannot find a universal happiness. This is why everyone is discussing pleasure; because pleasure is capabale of quasi-quantified. Different pleasures can be rated against another based on the quality of that pleasure.
I have to agree with Matt's ideas. Unlike Aristotle said, I believe that it is difficult to actually have a definition of happiness. Pleasure on the other hand is something we can agree on. I would also have to agree with Mill on the different values of pleasures. We would all agree that intellectual pleasures present us with more values than bodily pleasure. It is a more satisfying pleasure to complete a complicated satisfying piece of literature, than to beat your friend in a game of hockey on your Xbox.
Post a Comment